Anonymous manifesto calls humans a 'metastasis' and urges extinction

An anonymous manifesto circulating online describes humanity as the planet's "disgusting metastasis" and advocates "compulsory and collective euthanasia." It is a misanthropic text with no scientific or political backing.

The text presents itself as the "Nandian Manifesto of Absolute Dissidence" and is signed by someone who calls themselves a "lunar child." It describes human beings as "the most disgusting metastasis parasitizing this blue planet" and claims their existence is "a biological miscalculation." There is no record of a known author or any link to an organized group.

## Three stages toward an "ontological dissidence"

The manifesto structures its proposal in three steps. The first is the "severing of the biological cord," which it describes as rejecting parents it calls "wretched" for bringing children into the world. The second is the "demystification of matter": denying that the universe holds any beauty and reducing it to "chaos, entropy and ugliness."

The third stage is the "closing of the cycle," which the text defines as the imperative to extinguish human presence. The wording is explicit: faced with what it considers a "terminal diagnosis," it proposes "compulsory and collective euthanasia" as the "only ethical way out." In other words, it is not about individual decisions, but about imposing death on the entire species.

## A tone that mimics a medical diagnosis

The manifesto's vocabulary borrows words from oncology: metastasis, cancerous tissue, terminal diagnosis. Using that language, it describes everyday life and human conversation as "cancerous tissue optimizing glucose consumption." It is a metaphor, not a clinical finding, and should be read for what it is: rhetoric.

Radical misanthropy has intellectual precedents, from philosophical antinatalism to currents that question the value of consciousness. None of those traditions advocates imposing extinction by force. The leap from "not bringing more beings into the world" to "compulsory euthanasia" is enormous, and the manifesto makes it without arguing for it.

## Why it's best not to amplify it

Texts like this seek to provoke and, along the way, get people talking about them. They usually circulate on forums and social media with no verifiable signature, and their real impact is minimal. The risk lies in treating them as if they represented a current of thought when, almost always, they are an exercise in provocative style.

If someone close to you shares ideas of this kind with genuine distress, it is worth listening to them and, if there are signs of suffering, seeking help from a mental health professional. A manifesto is not a diagnosis, and a person is not a statistic.